REVIEWER  REVIEWED; 


o  r  , 


AN  ANSWER  TO  STRICTURES 

CONTAINED  IN  THE 

PRINCETON  BIBLICAL  REPERTORY, 

FOR  JULY,  1840, 

ON  DR.  HILL'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  RISE,  PROGRESS,  GENIUS, 
AND  CHARACTER, 

OF 

AMERICAN  PRESBYTERIANISIVL  ' 


BY  SIMPLEX 
NEW   YORK: 

PRINTED  FOR  THE  AUTHOR 
18  4  2 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://archive.org/details/revieweOOnewy 


MOTTOS  AND  MEMENTOS. 

He  that  is  first  in  his  own  cause,  seemeth  just ;  but  his  neighbor  cometh 
and  searched)  him.     Prov.  IS:  17. 

Knowest  thou  it,  because  thou  wast  then  born?  or  because  the  number  of 
thy  dare  is  great?     Job  38:  21. 

"  There  are  some  clergy,  like  military  cadets,  or  titled  and  epauletted  gen- 
erals, who  are  learned  in  the  tactics  and  technicalities  of  war;  but  who,  hav- 
ing never  seen  action  or  been  tried  in  the  high  places  of  the  field,  mistake  sadly 
the  duties  and  the  spirit  of  their  commission;  and  seldom  or  never  perform 
any  of  that  sort  oi  bumble  service  for  which  mainly  their  education  and  their 
office  were  procured  for  them.  These  are  not  inaptly  called  the  amateur  cler- 
gy. They  are  generally  theorizers,  partisans,  and  special  pleaders ;  and  withal 
somewhat  remarkably  learned.  They  are  intoxicated  with  place  and  power. 
They  love  to  have  the  preeminence;  and  while  very  orthodox  in  maintaining 
some  of  the  ideal  forms  of  the  first  table  of  the  decalogue,  are  seemingly  quite 
too  sublimated  to  make  a  proportionate  honoring  of  the  second  table  a  part  or 
a  measure  of  their  personal  piety.  At  any  rate,  the  fifth  commandment, 
though  the  first  of  that  table,  receives  very  little  illustration  from  the  manner 
in  which  they  treat  the  veterans  of  the  service,  who  were  doing  fatigue  duty 
for  the  church  before  their  censors  were  born." 

'•  And  there  are  some  Learned  and  plausible  men,  whose  greatest  skill  is  in 
misrepresentation.  They  are  specious  and  powerful ;  but  the  public  alwa\  a 
need  to  be  disabused  by  other  pens,  after  theirs  have  spread  a  too  grateful 
enchantment  over  plain  matters  of  fact." 


[£7"  This  answer  has  been  long  prepared,  and  would  have  appeared  sooner, 

had  not  the  delay  occurred  incidentally  after  the  manuscript  had  passed  into 
the  hand  of  another. 


THE  REVIEWER  REVIEWED. 


I\  the  Biblical  Repertory  and  Princeton  Review  for  July,  1840, 
strictures  upon  Dr.  Hill's  History  of  the  rise,  progress,  genius,  and 
character  of  American  Presbyterianism,  are  to  be  found,  of  a  very 
peculiar  character,  which  call  for  some  short  notice.  The  publica- 
tion now  to  be  noticed,  is  anonymous,  and  its  real  paternity  is  a  mat- 
ter of  very  little  consequence.  The  strong  presumption  is,  that  it  is 
cither  the  production  of  Dr.  Hodge  himself,  or  of  some  friend  of  his, 
who  wrote  it  as  a  mere  amanuensis,  or  under  his  own  eye,  and  aided 
by  his  materials  and  promptings. 

This  publication  is  designed  as  a  defence  of  Professor  Hodge's 
Constitutional  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  against  some  crit- 
icisms, and  charges  of  inaccuracy  brought  against  him  by  Dr.  Hill ; — 
and  if  you  may  judge  from  the  style  and  character  of  this  Princeton 
review,  our  learned  Professor  must  have  been  writhing  and  smarting 
under  some  of  the  strictures  made  by  Dr.  Hill. 

This  is  not  much  to  be  wondered  at,  for  Professor  H.  has  certainly 
acquired  considerable  distinction  as  a  writer,  and  has  had  as  much  in- 
cense offered  to  him  as  would  be  safe  for  most  men  of  his  age. 

Professor  Hodge,  or  his  friend  for  him,  in  the  Princeton  Review, 
manifests  considerable  ingenuity  in  endeavoring  to  shift  the  grounds 
of  the  controversy.  Their  old  position  was  found  an  unsafe  one, 
which  exposed  them  to  a  galling  fire  from  an  opponent; — therefore 
a  more  safe  and  sheltered  one  is  sought  for.  Every  intelligent  and 
candid  reader  of  the  1st  and  2nd  parts  of  Professor  \l.*s  history  must 
know  and  acknowledge  that  throughout  this  whole  work,  the  posi- 
tion taken  was,  that  the  entire  system  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  as 
contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  Form  of  Govern- 
ment, and  Book  of  Discipline,  as  practised  by  that  Church,  was 
adopted  at  first,  and  formed  an  essential  feature  of  American  Presby- 
terianism at  its  commencement  and  ever  since.  It  would  be  vain  to 
heap  up  quotations  to  prove  this.  I  shall  make  one  quotation,  only 
as  a  sample  of  scores  that  might  be  produced  upon  this  subject.  See 
Professor  Hodge's  History,  Part  1st,  p.  20. 

"The  young  daughter  of  the  church  of  Scotland, "  (meaning  the 
American  church,)  ''helpless,  and  exposed  in  a  foreign  land,  cries 
to  h^r  tender    parent  for   relief.      Whose  language  is  this  !"  (say- 


Prof.  H.)  "  Not  that  of  the  old  side  Synod.  It  is  the  language  of 
the  new  side  Synod.  Both  parties  in  our  church  have  appealed  to 
its  early  history  in  support  of  their  peculiar  opinions.  It  is  the  ob- 
ject of  this  work  to  review  that  history,  in  order  to  show  that  our 
church  has  demanded  adherence  to  the  system  of  doctrines  con- 
tained in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  as 
the  condition  of  ministerial  communion,  &c." 

Now  we  will  hear  what  the  Princeton  review  says  upon  this  sub- 
ject.    See  July  No.  for  1840.  p.  p.  323.  324. 

"Whenever  there  is  controversy,  it  is  desirable  to  know  the  state 
of  the  question ;  to  have  the  point  at  issue  distinctly  presented. 
Prof.  H.  took  the  ground  that  our  church,  from  its  very  organiza- 
tion in  this  country,  adopted  that  form  of  government  which  had 
been  previously  adopted  in  Scotland,  Ireland,  Holland,  and  by  the 
Protestants  of  France.  He  described  the  system  intended,  as  re- 
quiring the  government  of  particular  congregations,  to  be  vested  in 
the  pastor  and  eldership,  and  not  in  the  brotherhood ;  and  the  asso- 
ciation of  several  churches  under  one  presbytery,  composed  of  min- 
isters and  elders :  and  as  providing  for  provincial  and  national 
Synods,  in  which  were  vested  the  authority  of  review  and  control, 
and  the  right  to  set  down  rules  for  the  government  of  the  church. 
There  are  here  three  points  presented  with  tolerable  distinctness. 
First,  the  leading  principles  of  Presbyterianism  ;  secondly,  the  pre- 
valence of  this  system  of  government  in  the  plans  mentioned  ;  and 
thirdly,  its  adoption  by  our  own  church.  There  is  no  question  here, 
about  the  rigor  with  which  the  system  was  enforced — 'about  the 
authority  attributed  to  it,  whether  it  was  of  divine  right,  or  apostoli- 
cal example,  or  mere  expediency;  whether  it  was  essential  to  the  being 
of  a  church'  or  merely  the  best  form  of  government.  A'ot  one  of 
these  questions  was  raised.  It  was  merely  stated  what  Presbyterian- 
ism is'  and  asserted  that  certain  specified  churches  were  Presbyte- 
rian. One  would  think  that  the  only  course  for  an  opponent  to  take, 
was  to  attack  one  or  the  other  of  these  positions — to  show  that  Pres- 
byterianism does  not  include  the  above  mentioned  principles,  or  that 
it  was  not  adopted  in  that  form  by  the  churches  in  question.  This, 
we  admit,  would  have  been  rather  an  adventurous  enterprise ;  still 
it  was  the  only  thing  to  be  done.  But  Dr.  Hill  has  seen  fit  to  take 
a  very  different  course.  He  first  asserts  that  Prof.  Hodge  con- 
tends, that  our  church  adopted  the  strict  Scotch  system,  and  then 
he  gives  the  following  description  of  that  system,  &c." 

What  an  inoffensive,  and  harmless  position,  according  to  this  state- 
ment, must  Professor  11.  have  taken.  And  how  inexcusable  must 
Dr.  Hill  have  been  in  misunderstanding  and  misconstruing  these  harm- 
less positions  which  no  body  ever  disputed.  Our  author  must  have 
been  sick  of  his  cause,  when  he  wished  to  escape  from  it,  by  a  sub- 
terfuge like  this.  It  must  have  required  a  considerable  degree  of 
hardihood   to   venture  the  assertion,  that  there  was  no  question  about 


the  rigor  with  which  the  system  was  enforced  in  Professor  H.'s  Histo- 
ry.    Sec  Part  1st,  p.  18.  ' 

"  In  the  Synod,  (i.  e.  the  French  Synod,)  in  1644-5,  it  was  re- 
ported by  certain  deputies  from  the  maritime  provinces,  that  there 
do  arrive  to  them,  from  other  countries,  some  persons  going  by  the 
name  of  Independents,  &c  and  that  they  settle  their  dwellings  in 
this  kingdom,  [let  the  reader  remember  this  word  kingdom,]  a 
thing  of  great  and  dangerous  consequence,  if  not  in  time  carefully 
prevented.  Now,  this  assembly,  fearing  lest  the  contagion  of  this 
poison  should  diffuse  itself  insensibly,  and  bring  in  a  world  of  dis- 
order and  confusion  upon  us,  all  the  provinces  are  therefore  en- 
joined, but  more  especially  those  bordering  on  the  sea,  to  be  exceed- 
ingly careful  that  this  evil  do  not  get  footing  in  the  churches  in  this 
kingdom"     Again,  says  Prof.  H.  : 

"  There  are  many  acts  of  these  Synods,  which  would  make  modern 
ears  tingle,  and  which  prove  that  American  Presbyterianism,  in  its 
strictest  forms,  was  a  sucking  dove  compared  to  that  of  the  imme- 
diate descendants  of  the  reformers.  To  maintain  truth  and  order 
in  the  churches,  in  those  days,  required  a  sterner  purpose,  and  firmer 
conviction  than  are  commonly  to  be  met  with  at  the  present  time, 
when  many  are  wont  to  change  their  church  and  creed,  almost  as 
readily  as  they  change  their  clothes.*  This  account  of  the  French 
church  has  been  given,"  (says  Professor  H.,)  "  because  it  will  ap- 
pear in  the  sequel,  that  there  was,  at  an  early  period,  a  strong  infu- 
sion of  French  Presbyterianism  in  the  churches  of  this  country]  and  it 
is  well  to  know  something  of  its  character." 

There  can  be  no  mistake  when  Professor  Hod^e  uses  language  like 
this.  How  rude  and  unmanly  was  it  in  Dr.  Hill  to  assail  an  inno- 
cent and  unoffending  Professor,  so  needlessly,  when  he  raised  no  ques- 
tion about  the  rigor  with  which  his  system  was  enforced,  but  merely 
meant  to  state  in  the  abstract  what  Presbyterianism  was? 

Let  us  hear  the  Princeton  reviewer  once  more  upon  this  subject. 
See  p.  326. 

"^Should  an  American  Episcopalian  say,  that  his  church  was  the 
daughter  of  the  church  of  England,  and  had  adopted  the  essential 
principles  of  her  form  of  government,  he  certainly  would  treat  with 
silence  the  assertion,  that  he  thereby  claimed  the  lordly  titles,  the 
varied  powers,and  the  exclusive  principles  of  the  English  Hierarchy  I" 

But  not  so  fast,  Mr,  Reviewer,  in  coming  to  your  conclusion.     Let 


•  Professor  Hodge  should  have  been  a  little  more  modest  in  speaking  about  pi 
changing  their  etorcA  and  arm  re  their  clothes,  when  he  recol- 

uines  adfanced,  and  sentiments  maintained  by  himself  and  other  Princeton 
i  s     a  the  Biblical  Reperton  ,  in  the  year  1835,  respecting  thecal]  <>i'a  convention 

in  reform  and  purify  the  churchj  ana  subsequently,  when  it  was  erid  snt  tint  a  division  ,,f 
the  (  hur.il  was  i'  tended.    Compare  thai  state  "t  things  with  the  present,  and  then  judge 
who  are  the  changelings.    It  this  will  not  make  his  -ars  tingle,  I  itum  it  would,  al 
suiftae  his  cheeks  with  a  Mush 


8 

us  suppose  that  this  American  daughter  of  the  English  Hierarchy 
should  declare  at  the  same  time,  that  she  adopted  not  only  the  essen- 
tial principles  of  the  English  system,  but  her  entire  Prayer  Book,  in- 
cluding her  Articles,  form  of  worship,  and  administering  the  ordinan- 
ces, her  form  of  government,  by  Archbishops,  Bishops,  Priests,  Dea- 
cons, and  so  forth,  with  all  their  distinctive  powers  and  modes  of  con- 
secration, to  the  end  ;  that  she  was  in  fact,  part  and  parcel  of  the 
same,  and  bound  to  carry  out  all  her  laws,  canons,  and  enactments, 
and  to  follow  her  example  in  persecuting  dissenters  and  in  enforcing 
uniformity ;  would  such  declarations  satisfy  dissenters  and  others  in 
this  country,  who  had  fled  from  their  homes  to  escape  her  tyrannic 
grasp,  that  this  young  American  daughter  was  a  very  sweet,  harmless, 
and  innocent  little  creature  ? 

What  was  the  American  daughter  of  the  Scotch  Kirk,  of  which 
Professor  H.  speaks  so  affectionately,  as  possessing  such  inoffensive 
qualities  ?  Does  not  the  Scotch  Confession  of  Faith,  which  Professor 
H.  insists  that  the  American  church  had  adopted  from  the  first,  in- 
clude not  only  her  entire  system  of  doctrines,  but  of  government  and 
discipline  1  Aye !  more ;  does  it  not  include  her  National  League, 
together  with  her  exclusive  and  persecuting  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant,  which  this  Mother  Kirk  would  have  constrained  all  in  the 
realm  as  well  as  those  in  her  connection,  to  take,  or  be  dealt  with  as 
abettors  or  fautors  of  popery,  prelacy,  heresy,  and  other  mischiefs, 
whenever  she  had  it  in  her  power  ?  This  is  Professor  Hodge's  young 
American  daughter — his  young  sucking  dove,  which  we  must  all 
handle  with  so  much  tenderness,  and  nurse  with  so  much  care. 

But  if  Dr.  Hill  should  say  a  word  respecting  the  objectionable 
parts  of  this  Scotch  system,  though  he  should  apologize  for  her  weak- 
ness from  the  darkness  of  the  times,  and  the  spirit  of  the  day,  and 
give  all  due  credit,  as  he  again  and  again  has  done,  for  all  the  excel- 
lencies of  the  system,  he  is  now  to  be  classed  with  papists,  and  infi- 
dels, and  enemies  of  every  character,  for  aspersing  the  fair  fame  of 
thefgood  old  Mother  Kirk.  It  is  a  little  remarkable,  that  in  all  the 
quotations  made  from  Dr.  Hill's  statements,  respecting  the  principles 
of  the  Scotch  Kirk,  and  all  the  abusive  epithets  applied  to  him  for  so 
doing,  the  correctness  of  the  statements  he  gave  of  the  principles 
and  character  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  has  not  been  called  into 
question  in  a  solitary  instance;  nor  an  attempt  made  to  prove  that  he 
had  slandered  the  Kirk.  On  such  evil  times  have  we  fallen,  that 
whosoever  will  not  go  the  whole  of  this  system — who  will  not 
"swallow  the  total  grist,  unsifted,  husks  and  ail,"  must  expect  to  be 
classed  with  malignant  opposers  of  all  that  is  orthodox  and  sound  in 
the  church.  Such  gross  man-worshipers,  and  idolaters  of  system, 
have  many  among  us  now  become!  The  soul  of  the  writer  holds  in 
contempt  such  puerility  and  servility.  He  is  not  to  be  frightened 
with  such  menaces  or  bugbears  as  this. 


No.  II. 

We  shall  now  notice  another  subject  which  the  Princeton  reviewer 
brings  forward  with  a  great  flourish,  as  affording  him  a  complete  tri- 
umph, and   which  so  effectually  will  demolish  Dr.  Hill  as  to  render 
ss  all  that  he  hail  said,  or  might  hereafter  say  on  subjects  of  this 

nature.     The  reader   should   be   reminded   that  Dr.  Hill   in   the    first 
part  of  his  history  had  produced  copious  extracts  from  Mosheim's 
and  Neal's  histories  and  others,  flatly  contradicting  Professor  Ho*1 
character  of  the  French  Huguenots. 

We  shall  give  extracts  at  large  from  our  reviewer,  unbroken  by 
replies,  that  his  wonted  vaporing  may  appear  in  its  full  force ;  and 
reserve  the  privilege  of  commenting  at  the  close.  See  Princeton 
Review,  pp.  230,  231,  and  232. 

"It  may  be  admitted  that  false  doctrine  had  made  its  appearance 
among  the  French  Protestants  before  their  great  overthrow,  and  that 
their  descendants  departed  still  further  from  the  faith  ;  and  yet 
every  word  that  Professor  Hodge  said  about  this  ecclesiastical  sys- 
tem be  correct ;  and  every  word  that  Dr.  Hill  said  be  wrong.  In 
other  words,  the  extracts  from  Mosheim  (the  historical  verity  of 
whose  statements  we  are  far  from,  admitting)  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  subject  at  issue.  Before  leaving  this  subject  we  will  give  our 
readers  a  specimen  of  the  manner  in  which  Dr.  Hill  spins  history 
out  of  his  imagination,  and  sets  down  vague  impressions  as  positive 
facts.  We  just  q noted  one  passage  in  which  he  gave  an  account  of 
the  state  of  the  French  church,  when  the  declaration  against  the 
Independents  was  made.  He  returns  to  the  subject  again  and  says  : 
[Here  he  i^ives  a  quotation  from  Dr.  Hill.]  '  At  the  time  the  French 
Synod,  in  1644,  passed  the  act  which  Prof.  H.  cites  with  such  appa- 
rent pleasure,  the  Protestants  in  France  were  in  great  favor  with 
the  reiLrninor  king,  Francis  1,  who,  out  of  opposition  to  Charles  V, 
did  many  very  absurd  and  inconsistent  things  respecting  the  refor- 
mation. He  would  patronize  or  persecute  them  just  as  he  could 
make  it  subserve  his  purposes  of  state.  He  permitted  his  sister,  the 
queen  of  Navarre,  to  establish  the  reformation  in  the  kingdom  of 
Navarre  ;  and  it  was  during  the  days  of  this  prosperity,  and  when 
gross  darkness  rested  upon  christians  of  every  nation,  respecting 
liberty  of  conscience,  and  religious  freedom,  that  these  good  French 
Protestants  did  those  wicked  things  that  Prof.  II.  refers  to,  and 
which  I  did  expect  he  would  have  noticed,  with  at  least  some  apol- 
ogy or  mark  of  disapprobation.  But  no!  the  poor  Independents 
to  be  proscribed  and  banished  forthwith,  for  tear  they  would 
diffise  the  contagion  of  their  poison,  and  introdut  e  a  world  of  dis- 
orders into  the  provinces.'  [Now  hear  the  reviewer's  comment 
upon  this  quotation.] 

M  Francis  I.  [says  he]  was   bom   in   the   year    1494,  ascended    th< 


10 

throne  in  1515  ;  and  if  still  living  in  1644,  he  was  in  the  129th  year 
of  his  reign,  and  the  150th  of  his  life.  According  to  all  other  ac- 
counts he  died  in  1547,  i.  e.  ninety-seven  years  before  the  date  of 
his  great  favor  to  the  Protestants.  It  need  be  hardly  said  that  all 
the  minor  statements  of  this  paragraph  are  of  the  same  kind  with 
the  preceding.  There  was,  in  1644,  no  queen  of  Navarre  j  and  no 
such  kingdom  in  the  sense  in  which  Dr.  Hill  uses  the  terms.  The 
Protestants,  so  far  from  being  established  and  in  high  favor,  or  at 
the  right  hand  of  power,  were  reduced  to  a  state  of  complete  de- 
pendence. By  the  acts  of  Kichelieu,  under  the  reign  of  Louis  XIII, 
they  had,  by  fraud  or  force,  been  despoiled  of  all  their  strong  towns,- 
Rochelle,  their  last  defence,  fell  in  1629.  From  this  time  they  were 
at  the  mercy  of  their  enemies.  Louis  XIV.  came  to  the  throne  in 
1643;  his  mother,  Ann  of  Austria,  acting  as  regent,  and  cardinal 
Mazarin  administered  the  government  as  prime  minister.  All,  there- 
fore, that  Dr.  Hill  has  said  about  the  historical  circumstances  under 
which  the  declaration  against  the  Independents  was  made,  is  pure 
fiction.  He,  of  course,  had  no  intention  to  deceive  any  body ;  for 
whom  could  he  deceive  1  But  it  is  evident  that  he  has  not  the  slightest 
idea  of  the  responsibility  of  a  historian  ;  that  he  allows  himself  to 
write  down  just  what  comes  into  his  head,  and  that  he  is  the  last  man 
in  the  world  who  is  entitled  to  speak  of  others  as  unworthy  of  con- 
fidence." 

If  Dr.  Hill  can  survive  this  murderous  assault,  this  butchering  pro- 
cess, one  might  suppose  he  need  fear  nothing  that  may  befal  him 
hereafter.  We  will  see,  however,  whether  any  relief  can  be  afforded 
him  after  this  rough  handling. 

That  the  reader  may  see  the  point  and  force  of  these  remarks  of 
the  Princeton  reviewer,  it  may  be  necessary  to  explain,  a  little,  the 
point  at  issue.  Dr.  Hill,  in  reply  to  the  authorities  which  Professor 
H.  had  brought  forward  to  show  that  the  French  Protestants  were 
high  toned  exclusives,  who  had  banished  the  Independents,  who  had 
taken  refuge  among  them,  from  the  persecuting  Episcopalians  of 
England; — and  that  the  Presbyterians  in  America  were  in  their 
strictest  days  and  most  rigorous  measures  but  a  sucking  dove  to  the 
Huguenots.  Professor  H.  had  also  asserted  that  there  had  been  a 
strong  infusion  of  the  same  principles  made  by  the  French  refugees 
into  the  American  church,  at  an  early  day.  To  rebut  all  these  aver- 
ments, Dr.  Hill  had  stated  that  the  French  Protestants  were  a  very 
different  people  in  different  parts  of  their  history ; — while  in  power 
and  authority,  they  were  overbearing  and  oppressive,  but  when  in 
adversity,  and  struggling  with  difficulties  themselves,  they  were  libe- 
ral in  doctrine,  and  tolerant  in  government.  In  proof  of  this,  Dr. 
Hill  had  quoted  largely  from  Mosheim,  Neal,  and  others.  These  ar- 
guments and  authorities  appear  to  have  disturbed  Dr.  Hodge  and  his 
friends,  more  than  a  little. 

Bu1  as  people  are  more  apt  to  use  abusive  language,  and  angry  re- 
marks, when  hard  pushed,  instead  of  better  arguments,  so  here  we 


11 

timl  more  scurrilous  and  ungentlemanly  language  tlian  might  have. 
been  expected  from  Professor  H.  or  any  of  bis  Princeton  associates 
upon  this  occasion.     We  shall  now  give  this  vituperative  extract  a 

little  notice. 

1.  The  reviewer  admits  that  all  that  Dr.  Hill  had  produced  from 
Mosheim  respecting  false  doctrine  among  the  Huguenots  might  he 
true,  and  yet  ;ill  that  Professor  Hodge  had  said  respecting  ecclesias- 
lieal  polity,  lie  strictly  true,  and  all  that  Dr.  Hill  had  said  upon  the 
subject,  be  entirely  wrong.  This  goes  upon  the  supposition  that  all 
that  was  quoted  from  Mosheim  and  others,  related  to  doctrine,  and 
not  at  ail  to  government; — whereas  a  reference  to  those  quotations 
will  show  that  reference  was  had  to  their  ideas  respecting  indulgence 
and  tolerance  when  they  were  excluding  or  disciplining  those  who 
differed  from  them  in  sentiment  ;  as  well  as  to  terms  of  uniting  with 
others,  who  differed  on  non-essential  points.  But  as  it  afraid  to  rest 
Professor  Hodge's  defence  upon  so  flimsy  an  argument,  Dr.  Mosheim's 
character  is  about  as  rudely  treated,  (and  from  his  own  admission 
quite  unnecessarily,)  as  he  had  just  treated  Dr.  Bill's  character.  In 
a  short  parenthetical  sentence,  Mosheim's  veracity  as  a  historian  is 
flatly  called  in  question.  "  The  historical  verity  of  whose  statements 
we  are  far  from  admitting"  After  such  strange  language,  one 
would  naturally  expect  to  be  told  wherein  he  had  falsified,  and  where 
better  and  more  authentic  historical  information  could  be  obtained. 
But  not  a  word  of  this.  You  lie,  Sir,  is  all  the  argument.  This  is 
a  summary  way  of  ending  an  argument  and  claiming  a  victory.  The 
fact  is,  that  Mosheim's  statement  so  completly  answered  and  refuted 
what  Professor  1  lodge  had  alleged,  that  no  alternative  seemed  to  he 
left,  hut  to  deny  that  Mosheim  deserved  any  credit  at  all,  or  to  leave 
Professor  Hodge  convicted  of  being  as  ignorant  of  historical  facts, 
as  he  now  undertakes  to  prove  that  Dr.  Hill  was. 

2.  Bui  suppose  Dr.  llill  had  misplaced  some  dates  and  facts,  in 
giving  a  summary  account  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  Protestant 
reformers  in  France,  or  that  in  haste  he  had  expressed  himself  loosely 
and  incautiously,  (which  in  candor  is  readily  admitted,)  would  that 
i  liracy  in  dates  affect  the  main  argument,  to  which  these  mistakes 
had  no  relation  at  all  !  Can  any  one  suppose  that  in  giving  a  hasty 
and  summary  account  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  reformation  in 
France,  Dr.  Ihll  meant  to  make  all  the  changes  and  fluctuations 
through  which  Protestantism  passed,  for  ahout  L50 years, synchronize 
strictly  with  the  persecution  of  the  Independents,  which  took  place 
in  L6  1  1  \  'I'lii-  IS  a  pitiful  captlOUSness,  to  which  no  candid  disputant, 
who  could  command  better  arguments,  would  ever  resort.  Bui  can 
Professor  11.  feel  willing  to  trust  to  such  a  quibble  to  wipe  off  the 
stigma  of  quoting  with  such  apparent  approbation  the  persecuting 
acts  of  the  French  Protestants;  and  then  commenting  upon  it  as  he 
did; — and  at  last  attempting  to  fix  such  a  slander  upon  American 
Presbyterianism  as  .saying  thai  there  was  a  strong  infusion  of  the 
same  principles  in  that  church  at  an  early  period  of  its  histor\   \ 

3.  Our  learned  and  accurate  reviewer  informs  his  readers,  that  in 


12 

the  year  1644,  the  time  to  which  Dr.  Hill  referred,  "  there  was  no 
Queen  of  Navarre,  and  no  such  kingdom,  in  the  sense  in  which  he 
used  that  term"  In  what  sense  he  supposed  Dr.  Hill  used  the  word 
kingdom,  it  is  for  him  to  say.  Dr.  Hill  simply  asserted  that  there 
was  such  a  kingdom  at  the  time  alluded  to,  and  that  the  Protestants 
were  in  power  in  that  kingdom.  But  this  our  reviewer  denies. 
What  meaning  can  he  put  on  such  words  as  these,  which  have  just 
been  quoted  from  Professor  H.  himself  ?  From  the  records  of  Synod 
(says  he)  in  1644,  "it  was  reported  by  certain  Deputies  from  the 
maritime  provinces  that  there  do  arrive  from  other  countries  some 
persons  going  by  the  name  of  Independents,  and  that  they  settle 
their  dwellings  in  this  Kingdom,  a  thing  of  dangerous  consequence  if 
not  in  time  carefully  prevented.  Now  this  assembly — do  enjoin  it 
upon  all  the  Provinces,  but  especially  those  bordering  on  the  sea,  to 
be  exceedingly  careful  that  this  evil  do  not  get  looting  in  the  church- 
es in  this  Kingdom."  From  this  record  we  learn  that  the  kingdom 
of  Navarre  still  existed  at  the  time  alluded  to;  that  it  contained  many 
provinces; — that  the  French  Protestants  were  numerous  and  their  re- 
ligion established  in  that  kingdom ; — and  that  they  had  power  to 
suppress  heresy  and  prosecute  heretics,  which  was  clone  in  compliance 
with  the  orders  of  their  General  Synod.  This  is  all  that  Dr.  Hill  as- 
serted, but  this  is  now  denied.  Hear  the  reviewer  further.  "  The 
Protestants,  so  far  from  being  established,  or  in  high  favor,  or  at  the 
right  hand  of  power,  were  reduced  to  a  state  of  complete  depend- 
ence. All  therefore  that  Dr.  Hill  has  said  about  this  matter  is  pure 
fiction." 

Take  a  plain  story  now  from  the  Rev.  James  Saurin,  that  eminent 
Huguenot  divine  and  confessor  for  the  truth,  in  his  memoirs  of  the 
reformation  of  France  prefixed  to  his  sermons,  pp.  40,  41.  Says  he, 
"  Cardinal  Richlieu's  hoary  head  went  down  to  the  grave  in  1642, 
without  the  tears  of  his  Master,  and  with  the  hatred  of  all  France. 
The  King  soon  followed  him  in  1643,  complaining,  in  the  words  of 
Job,  "  My  soul  is  weary  of  life."  The  Protestants  had  increased 
greatly  in  numbers  in  this  reign,  though  they  had  lost  their  power, 
For  they  were  now  computed  to  exceed  two  millions.  So  true  is  it, 
that  violent  measures  weaken  the  church  that  employs  them.  Louis 
XIV  was  only  in  the  fifth  year  of  his  age  at  the  demise  of  his  father, 
The  Queen  Mother  was  appointed  sole  regent  during  his  minority, 
and  Cardinal  Mazarin,  a  creature  of  Richlieu's,  was  his  prime  minis- 
ter. The  Edict  of  Nantz  was  confirmed  in  1643  [only  one  year  be- 
fore the  banishment  of  the  Independents]  by  the  Regent,  and  again 
by  the  King,  at  his  majority,  1652." 

It  will  be  left  now  with  the  intelligent  reader  to  judge  which  is 
the  more  completely  demolished,  our  [earned  Princeton  reviewer,  or 
Dr.  1  [ill.  There  is  but  one  way  for  him  to  escape  from  this  dilemma, 
which  is  the  same  easy  and  effectual  remedy  by  which  he  saved  Pio~ 
fessor  Hodge  from  the  strait  in  which  he  was  placed  by  the  testimony 
of  Moshr'mi ;  namely, kk  The  historical  verity  of  whose  statement  we 
are  far  from  admitting." 


13 


No.  in. 

The  remarks  of  the  reviewer  respecting  the  settlements  made  on 
the  west  side  of  the  River  Delaware  arc  but  repetitions  of  what 
Professor  II.  had  before  said.  He  has,  however,  one  additional  argu- 
ment by  which  to  prove  his  point.  See  p.  339.  "The  settlement 
from  New  Haven,  we  infer,  from  its  "being  noticed  by  Gordon,  in  his 
history  of  New  Jersey,  was  on  the  cast  side."  But  mark  it.  Gor- 
don does  not  say  it  was  on  the  east  side;  but  simply  mentioned, 
among  other  matters,  the  existence  of  such  a  settlement  upon  the 
river  Delaware  at  that  time.     Is  this  a  sample  of  Princeton  logic? 

The  arguments  produced  by  Dr.  Hill  to  show  that  New  Engend- 
ers had  formed  settlements  at  an  early  period  on  the  river  Delaware, 
and  especially  on  the  west  side,  were  such  as  these, 

1.  Under  the  charter  granted  to  Lord  Baltimore  for  the  colony  of 
Maryland  in  1632,  his  lordship  claimed  all  the  territory  which  lay 
from  Cape  Henlopen  on  the  river  Delaware  as  far  as  the  mouth  of 
the  Schuylkill ;  and  the  utmost  liberty  of  conscience  was  Guaranteed 
by  said  charter  to  all  colonists  who  would  settle  within  its  limits.  In 
1640,  a  large  body  of  land  was  purchased  by  a  company  of  mer- 
chants about  New  Haven,  and  a  settlement  was  begun  there  at  that 
time.  In  1642,  settlers  claiming  to  be  Marylanders,  formed  a  settle- 
ment about  the  mouth  of  the  Schuylkill,  which  however  was  soon 
broken  up  by  the  Dutch.  In  the  year  1643,  the  settlers  upon  the 
Delaware  complained  to  the  civil  authorities  in  New  England,  that 
they  were  much  molested  by  the  Swedes  and  the  Dutch,  and  prayed 
for  assistance,  and  especially  that  reinforcements  of  settlers  might  be 
sent  them,  which  Governor  Winthrop  was  unwilling  at  that  time  to 
grant,  as  they  had  need  themselves  both  of  men  and  money.  The 
same  year,  L643,  Lord  Baltimore,  (hearing  no  doubt  of  the  unsuccess- 
ful application  made  to  the  government  of  New  England, )invited 
settlers  to  come  from  New  England  to  Maryland,  promising  them 
land  and  full  liberty  of  conscience  within  his  colony. 

2.  The  inducements  were  much  greater  lor  the  New  Englanders  to 
settle  on  the  west  than  on  the  east  of  the  river; — the  land  was  far 
preferable,  the  climate  better,  and  the  dangers  and  hazards  to  which 
they  would  be  exposed,  woe  fewer  on  the  west  than  east  side,  be- 
sides the  promise  of  protection  from  the  proprietor  of  Maryland 

In  1682,  the  settlements  upon  the  Delaware,  which  had  hitherto 
been  claimed  by  the  Proprietor  of  Maryland,  were  continue!  by  char- 
ter to  William  Perm,  and  became  part  of  Pennsylvania  These  two 
colonies  were  the  only  places  then  known  where  'liberty  of  conscience 
and  religious  freedom  could  be  obtained. 

In  the  year  L694,  only  11  years  before  the  mothor  presbytery  was 
formed,  Sir  Lionel  Copely,  who  was  Governor   of  Maryland,  com- 


14. 

plained  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  that  there  were  but  three  Episcopal 
clergymen  in  the  colony,  and  these  had  to  contend  with  double  their 
number  of  Roman  Priests,  and  a  number  of  wandering  pretenders  to 
be  preachers,  (as  he  called  them,)  from  New  England  and  other  pla- 
ces, who  kept  dissenters  from  the  Episcopal  church,  and  even  drew 
off  many  churchmen  by  their  extemporary  prayers  and  preachments. 

From  such  reasons  as  these,  Dr.  Hill  supposed  it  might  be  inferred, 
what  kind  of  people  they  were,  and  what  were  their  religious  senti- 
ments and  predilections,  who  formed  the  first  Presbyterian  congrega- 
tions in  America,  and  whence  they  obtained  their  ministers. 

Passing  over  other  and  slighter  mailers  contained  in  the  Princeton 
review,  the  attention  of  the  reader  shall  now  be  called  to  the  only  re- 
maining subject  of  any  importance ;  which  is,  the  absurdities  and 
contradictions  charged  upon  Dr.  Hill,  and  the  parade  of  quotations 
produced  from  the  original  minutes,  and  other  documents,  to  prove 
them,  relative  to  the  first  organization  of  the  churches  upon  the  Pa- 
tuxent  river  in  Maryland,  especially  the  Scotch  congregation,  located 
in  upper  Marlborough,  with  Nathaniel  Taylor  their  minister,  who 
came  over  with  them  from  Scotland.  Dr.  Balch's  letters  to  Dr.  Green 
are  produced  again  with  great  confidence,  as  affording  evidence  of 
Dr.  Hill's  utter  incapacity  for  writing  upon  such  subjects.  Here  our 
reviewer  claims  a  second  triumph  with  such  confidence,  that  many 
would  suppose  that  Dr.  Hill  must  be  smothered  at  once,  or  nailed  as 
a  counterfeit  to  the  counter,  as  unworthy  of  credit  for  the  future. 
Let  the  reader  suspend  his  judgment  for  a  short  time,  until  he  shall 
hear  a  word  on  the  other  side  of  the  question,  when  he  may  probably 
find  that  all  this  confident  boasting  over  a  vanquished  enemy  was  a 
little  premature. 

Before  we  meet  this  formidable  array  of  arguments  and  documen- 
tary evidence,  we  must  say,  that  it  should  not  be  thought  strange,  if 
Dr.  Hill,  laboring  under  the  disadvantages  which  he  did,  from  the 
want  of  access  to  the  original  papers,  which  are  carefully  kept  for 
the  exclusive  use  of  his  opponents,  should  not  have  been  precisely 
accurate  in  some  of  his  references  to  old  records.  He  could  not 
meet  his  antagonist  here,  upon  equal  ground.  Dr.  Hill  complained 
before,  that  he  was  assailed  by  unfair  or  unlawful  weapons,  against 
which  he  had  not  the  chance  of  defending  himself. 

Not  only  are  the  minutes  and  other  Presbyterial  and  Synodical 
documents  kept  for  the  exclusive  use  of  a  favored  few,  or  loaned 
with  such  restrictions  and  limitations,  as  to  be  of  little  use,  but  refer- 
ence it  continually  had  to,  and  authority  adduced  from,  a  mass  of  pri- 
vate ana  unpublished  manuscripts,  from  which  only  one  side  had  per- 
mission to  uiH  and  select,  to  conceal  or  suppress,  at  pleasure.  But 
enough  of  thu-p  jumbled  quotations  and  garbled  statements  have 
now  come  to  light,' to  show  what  credit  is  due  to  such  er  parte  compi- 
lations.    Our  obligation^  are  due,  however,  to  our  late  reviewer,  for 

iving  us  a  little  more  information  than  was  formerly  exhibited,  of 

r.  Balch's  lucid  communications,  of  which  so  much  use  has  been 


i 


15 

made,  and  from  which  such  important  conclusions  have  been  drawn, 
to  clear  away  the  mists  th.it  rest  upon  the  early  history  of  our  church. 
\V.  may  now  have  an  opportunity  from  the  selected  parts  of  those 
letters,  the  whole  of  which  we  have  never  seen,  (for  as  yet  we  have 
only  a  lew  scattering  fragments  of  them,)  to  form  a  judgment  of 
what  they  are  really  worth,  and  have  them  compare  with  documents 
which  are  authentic.  If  we  should  be  obliged  to  stricture  those  com- 
munications with  some  freedom,  we  utterly  disavow  any  unfriendly 
feelings  toward  Dr.  Balch,  and  would  wish  to  treat  his  memory  witli 
all  possible  respect,  and  would  cautiously  avoid  saying  any  thing  that 
might  unnecessarily  wound  the  feelings  of  any  member  of  the  respect- 
able relatives  he  has  left  behind  him.  But  the  truth  is  not  to  be  sac- 
rificed, out  of  regard  to  any  man  ;  and  the  character  of  Dr.  Hill  needs 
protection,  as  well  as  that  of  Dr.  Balch;  and  if  his  character  for  m- 
ing  correct  information  upon  historical  facts  should  be  exhibited  in  a 
rather  unfavorable  point  of  view,  there  is  no  intention  to  assail  his 
respectability  in  other  aspects  of  his  character.  He  might  have  re- 
ceived incorrect  statements  from  others,  or  might  not  have  remem- 
bered distinctly,  and  might  have  written  hastily,  and  without  due  re- 
flection. But  if  complaint  is  made  against  any  one,  in  this  matter, 
it  should  not  be  against  those  who  act  only  on  the  defensive,  but 
against  those  who  have  thus  needlessly  dragged  into  light,  what 
more  required  concealment,  or  a  veil  of  charity. 

Professor  H.  and  his  friend  the  reviewer  would  have  acted  more 
wisely,  and  more  consistently  with  friendship  for  that  venerable  la- 
ther, to  have  treated  those  letters  as  Dr.  Green  had  done,  for  whose 
special  benefit  they  were  written*  and  from  whom  Professor  II.  tells 
us  he  obtained  them.  Dr.  Green,  in  his  Christian  Advocate,  vol.  8, 
p.  467,  published  in  the  year  1S30,  long  after  he  had  received  and 
perused  Dr.  Balch's  letters,  makes  this  remark;  "  The  place  where 
Taylor  exercised  his  ministry,  the  writer  has  not  been  able  satisfacto- 
rily to  ascertain^  nor  the  time  of  his  death"  Dr.  Green  must  have 
seen,  that  there  was  an  irreconcilable  difference  between  Dr.  Balch's 
statements,  and  the  records  of  the  Presbytery,  with  which  he  was  well 
acquainted;  for  Dr.  Balch  undertook  to  tell,  both  where  Taylor  ex- 
ercised his  ministry,  namely,  at  Upper  Marlborough xu  .Maryland,  and 
when  he  died,  namely,  in  1703  ;  whereas  Dr.  Green  knew  from  the 
records  that  Taylor  was  alive  and  an  active  member  of  the  Presbytery 
in  1709,  seven  years  after  Dr.  Balch  had  him  dead  and  buried. 
Dr.  Green  therefore  passed  his  statements  over,  as  well  meant,  but 
mistaken  and  incorrect,  and  therefore  not  worthy  of  further  notice. 
But  the  zeal  of  Professor  H.  and  his  friend  the  reviewer.  SO  far  outran 
their  discretion,  as  to  determine  them  doI  to  lose  the  opportunit 
procuring  the  direct  testimony  of  the  only  man  they  could  procure, 
to  prove  that  there  was  at  least,  one  Scotch  minister,  and  a  Scotch 
congregation  in  the  constituency  of  the  mother  Presbyter)  ;  and  if 
Dr.  Balch  should  contradict  the  records  of  the  Presbytery,  as  they 
knew  he  would,  they  would  tax  their  ingenuity  to  make  even  his  ab- 


16 

surdities  and  contradictions  redound  to  Dr.  Balch's  credit,  as  we  shall 
presently  see  they  have  done. 

To  let  the  reader  see  the  charges  of  absurdity  and  contradiction 
brought  against  Dr.  Hill  in  their  full  force,  the  arguments  and  docu- 
ments derived  from  the  records  of  Presbytery  shall  now  all  be  given 
in  their  true  connection,  and  unbroken  by  replies  and  refutation,  till 
after  all  the  quotation  from  that  quarter  shall  have  been  given,  fur- 
ther than  a  few  short  explanations  between  brackets,  as  we  go  along, 
which,  if  the  reader  chooses,  he  may  at  the  first  reading  pass  over, 
and  in  so  doing  he  will  have  the  words  of  the  reviewer  verbatim. 
See  Repertory,  pp.  241,  242. 

"  The  only  remaining  case  is  that  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Taylor.  Prof. 
Hodge  had  stated,  on  the  authority  of  the  late  Dr.  Balch,  that  Col. 
Ninian  Beall,  a  native  of  Scotland,  having  been  driven  from  his  own 
country  by  persecution,  came  to  Maryland  about  1690  ;  that  he  wrote 
home  to  his  friends  and  neighbors  to  join  him,  and  that  in  conse- 
quence of  his  exertions  about  two  hundred  of  them  came  over, 
bringing  the  Rev.  Mr.  Taylor  as  their  pastor,  and  formed  the  church 
and  congregation  of  Upper  Marlborough.  This  account  Dr.  Hill 
very  unceremoniously  rejects.  He  calls  it  a  story,  a  tale;  says  Dr. 
Balch  was  misinformed  ;  conjectures  that  the  account  was  received 
from  him  when  he  was  far  gone  in  second  childhood,  and  so  forth. 
He  insists  that  the  first  account  we  hear  of  the  church  at  Marlbo- 
rough, was  a  petition  sent  to  Presbytery,  about  the  year  1715  or 
1716,  from  a  few  Scoth  merchants  and  others,  for  supplies  of  preach- 
ing. Two  members,  Messrs.  Conn  and  Orme,  were  sent  to  those 
regions  to  missionate,  and  look  after  the  people  of  Marlborough  and 
others.  Both  of  these  ministers  settled  west  of  the  Chesapeake,  in 
Maryland,  and  Mr.  Conn  was  ordained  and  settled  at  Marlborough, 
in  the  year  1716,  as  their  first  minister,  as  the  records  of  Presby- 
tery will  show.  The  main  position  of  Dr.  Hill,  and  that  on  which 
his  whole  cause  depends,  is  that  the  congregation  of  Marlborough  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  before  1715."  [Mark 
this  expression  of  Dr.  Hill's  ;  he  did  not  say  the  people  on  Patuxent 
were  not  mentioned,  but  the  congregation,  or  church  of  Marlbo- 
rough, evidently  meaning  in  an  organized  character,  or  as  having  a 
pastor.  The  reviewer  proceeds:]  "We  must  premise  here,  that 
Marlborough  lies  upon  the  Patuxent  river,  hence  Dr.  Hill  sometimes 
calls  the  congregation  in  question,  Marlborough,  and  sometimes  Pa- 
tuxent. [This  is  not  so  ;  Dr.  Hill  used  no  such  language  ;  it  will 
be  seen  presently  what  led  to  this  misunderstanding.]  The  minutes 
do  the  same  thing.  [This  is  a  perversion  of  the  minutes,  as  we 
shall  soon  see.]  In  1715,  it  was  ordered  that  a  letter  be  written  to 
the  people  of  Patuxent,  and  we  find  it  addressed  to  our  christian 
friends  at  Marlborough  ;  these,  then,  according  to  Dr.  Hill  and  the 
minutes,  were  different  names  for  the  same  congregation." 

A  plain  story  will  set  all  this  sophistry  straight  presently.    "  We 
meet  again  at  Philippic     See  now  p.  343. 


17 


No.  IV. 


"As  early  as  1711,  we  find  the  following  mention  of  this  congre- 
gation:— 'Mr.  \Io\isirs  affair  in  reference  to  Patuxent  was  deferred 
to  another  time,'  p.  12  of  the  minutes;  and  on  i he  s;imc  page,  Mr. 
Mr.  McNish's  case  came  under  consideration,  and  it  was  determined 
to  leave  his  affair  respecting  Jamaica  and  Patuxent  to  himself,  with 
the  advice  not  to  delay  fixing  himself  somewhere.  [Ohserve,  the 
Presbytery  never  use  the  language  '  of  the  congregation  of  Patuxent ,' 
but  it  often  speaks  of  the  people  on  Patuxent.  More  of  this  anon.] 
The  simple  explanation  of  this  minute  [says  the  reviewer]  is  this. 
The  Rev.  Mr.  Taylor,  who  Dr.  Balch  says,  was  the  first  pastor  of  the 
Patuxent  people.  [Dr.  Balch  uses  this  language,  that  Mr.  Taylor  was 
the  first  pastor  of  Marlborough  ;  this  confusion  of  language  belongs 
to  the  reviewer.]  The  Rev.  Mr.  Taylor,  who,  Dr.  Balch  says,  was 
the  first  pastor  of  the  Patuxent  people  died  about  1710.  [This  is 
strange  perversion  of  the  truth,  for  Dr.  Balch  says  he  died  1703.] 
He  was  present  at  Presbytery  in  1709,  but  never  appeared  again. 
His  congregation  being  thus  left  vacant,  they  called  Mr.  McNish, 
[This  is  all  gratuitous  assumption,  or  'spinning  history  out  of  the 
reviewer's  own  imagination,']  and  he  having  at  the  same  time  re- 
ceived a  call  from  Jamaica,  Long  Island,  was  left  to  decide  between 
them.  He  decided  in  favor  of  Jamaica,  where  it  was  shown  he  set- 
tled in  1712,  and  accordingly  supplies  became  necessary  for  Patux- 
ent j  hence  it  was  ordered  that  Mr.  Wilson  do  supply  the  people  of 
Patuxent  {owe  Sabbaths;  Mr.  Henry  four  Sabbaths,  and  Mr.  Hump- 
ton  is  left  to  himself  to  supply  sometimes  if  he  can.  All  this  [says 
the  reviewer]  was  in  1711.  So  much  for  the  assertion,  that  there 
was  do  allusion  to  the  congregation  before  1716.  Dr.  Hill's  next  as- 
sertion, namely,  that  Mr.  Conn  organized  the  church  at  Patuxent, 
and  became  their  first  pastor  in  1715  or  1716,  is  o(  course  refuted 
by  the  preceding  records,  which  prove,  at  least,  the  existence  of  the 
congregation  in  1711.  This  assertion  is  repeated  in  various  forms 
and  with  much  detail.  '  About  the  year  1714,'  says  Dr.  Hill,  '  two 
young  licentiates,  or  students  of  theology,  arrived  from  England, 
Hugh  Conn,  and  John  Orme.  The  next  year,  1715,  Mr.  Conn  was 
ordained,  and  sent  to  preach  to  the  people  about  Patuxent  and  Bla- 
densburg  ;  he  organized  congregations  at  both  of  these  places,  and 
became  their  first  pastor,  and  lived  and  died  such.'  It  will  appear 
from  what  follows,  that  Mr.  Conn,  so  far  from  being  the  first  pastor 
of  Patuxent,  was  never  pastor  of  that  congregation  at  all.  He  was 
received  by  Presbytery  as  a  licentiate  in  17 If),  as  appears  from  the 
following  record:  'Mr.  James  Gordon  having  presented  a  call  from 
the  people  of  Baltimore  county,  in  Maryland,  unto  Mr.  Hugh  Conn, 
the  Presbytery  called  for,  considered,  and  approved  the  said  Mr. 
Conn's  credentials,  as  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  and  likewise  con- 
sidered and  approved  the  call,  which  being  presented  by  the  mode- 
rator to  Mr.  Conn,  he  accepted  of  it  j  whereupon  it  was  appointed 

3 


18 

that  Messrs.  Magill,  Anderson,  Gillespie,  Wortherspoon,  and  Evans, 
after  being  satisfied  of  his  ministerial  abilities,  should  solemnly,  by- 
prayer,  fasting,  and  the  imposition  of  hands,  ordain  him  unto  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  among  the  above  said  people,  the  third  Thurs- 
day of  October  next.'  He  was  ordered,  therefore,  over  the  people 
in  Baltimore  county,  and  not  over  the  Patuxent  people!  [It  is  painful 
to  have  to  expose  such  ignorance  and  absurdities,  as  we  shall  have 
to  do  in  reply  to  this.]  What  makes  this  matter  still  more  certain 
[says  the  reviewer]  is,  that  the  Patuxent  people  had,  at  this  very 
time,  a  pastor  settled  over  them.  In  September,  1715,  a  month  be- 
fore the  ordination  of  Mr.  Conn,  it  was  ordered  by  the  Presbytery, 
that  Messrs.  Anderson,  McNish,  and  Gillespie,  write  a  letter  to  the 
people  of  Patuxent,  in  relation  to  the  present  posture  of  their  affairs. 
In  this  letter  the  Presbytery  say:  'We  have  much  comfort  in 
hearing  from  our  brother,  your  reverend  pastor,  that  when  (as  is 
our  practice)  he  was  interrogated  concerning  the  manner  of  his 
people's  deportment  towards  him,  in  his  pastoral  office,  he  made  his 
answers  wholly  to  their  advantage.'  This  letter  is  principally  an 
exhortation  to  peace,  and  a  caution  against  Satan's  attempts  to  pro- 
duce divisions  among  them."  p.  344. 

"  Dr.  Balch  states  that  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Taylor,  [which,  by 
the  bye,  he  says  was  in  1703,]  the  congregation  was  vacant  about 
three  years,  [namely,  till  1706,]  but  at  last  obtained  a  pastor,  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Magill,  from  some  Presbytery  in  Scotland.  We  have 
already  seen,  [but  not  from  Dr.  Balch's  letters,]  that  the  name  of 
Taylor  ceases  to  appear  on  the  minutes  after  the  year  1709  ;  [and 
why  did  not  Magill's  name,  who  had  been  Taylor's  successor  for 
three  years,  according  to  Dr.  Balch,  appear  there  also,  at  this  early 
period]]  that  in  1711,  the  congregation  called  McNish,  but  that  he 
declined;  and  in  1713,  Magill  was  received  as  an  ordained  minister, 
as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  extract :  [that  is,  seven  years 
after  he  had  been  Taylor's  successor  at  Upper  Marlborough,  accor- 
ding to  Dr.  Balch.]  Mr.  Robert  Lawson,  Mr.  Daniel  Magill,  [not 
Robert  Magill,  according  to  Dr.  Balch,]  and  Mr.  George  Gillespie, 
having  applied  to  Presbytery  for  admittance  as  members  thereof,  the 
Presbytery,  finding,  by  their  ample  testimonials,  that  they  have  been 
legally  and  orderly  ordained  as  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  that 
they  have  since  behaved  themselves  as  such,  did  cheerfully  and  cor- 
dially receive  them,  and  they  took  their  places.'  The  coincidence 
[he  should  have  said  discordance]  does  not  stop  here ;  Dr.  Balch 
says  Magill  was  an  austere  and  morose  man,  got  into  difficulties 
with  his  people,  and  left  them.  [Dr.  Balch  says  he  and  his  congre- 
gation soon  parted."]  Accordingly  wc  (ind  that  in  1715,  two  years 
after  his  settlement,  [this  is  according  to  the  reviewer,  but  if  Dr. 
Balch's  statement  be  credited,  it  would  have  been  nine  years,]  there 
was  trouble  in  the  congregation,  and  that  the  Presbytery  found  it 
necessary  to  write  to  them,  and  to  exhort  them  to  exercise  proper 
feelings  towards  their  pastor  ;  [this  is  the  same  letter  that  was  writ- 
ten in  1715,  just  one  month  before  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Conn,  in 
which  it  was  said  there  was  so  much  cordiality  and  good  feeling 
between  that  people  and  their  pastor  !  !  What  a  change  is  here  !] 


10 

and  fan  17i<\  Mi  Magill  was  withoul  any  pastoral  charge.  Dr.  Balch 
Bays,  thai  after  the  departure  of  Mr.  Maiill,  [which  took  plan 
mfter  he  settled  among  them,  in  1706,  says  Dr.  Batch,]  the  congn 
tion  obtained,  through  the  intervention  of  sertain  London  merchants, 
the  Rev.  John  Orme  as  their  pastor.  ["Who  would  have  thought 
that  n  strict  Scotch  congregation  would  have  sought  a  minister  from 
such  a  quarter  ?]  This  also  fully  accords  with  the  minutes  j  for  in 
1720,  \fr.  John  Orme  presented  to  Synod  his  testimonials, and  was 
received  as  a  member.     Min.  of  Pres.  p.  51." 

"Here,  then,  [says  the  reviewer,]  are  a  series  of  coincidences 
[can  he  be  in  earnest  !  !]  which  can  admit  of  DO  other  explanation 
than  the  truth  of  Dr.  Batch's  history.  According  to  him,  Mr.  Taylor 
came  to  this  country  with  his  people,  towards  the  beginning  of  the 
last  century.  [Prof.  Hodge  says  in  1690.]  Me  died  early,  [Dr.  B. 
says  in  1703,]  and  after  an  interval  of  a  few  years,  [Dr.  13.  says 
three,]  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Magill,  who  differed  with  his  people 
and  left  them,  [Dr.  B.  says  soon  after  he  settled  among  them,]  and 
was  succeeded  by  -Air.  Orme  in  1710.  [Our  reviewer  had  just  told 
us,  that  Air.  Orme  was  received  as  a  member  of  Presbytery  in  17:20.] 
We  learn  [says  the  reviewer]  from  the  minutes  thai  Mr.  Taylor  was 
a  member  of  the  Presbytery  in  170;")  5  that  he  was  dead  in  1710  J 
[what  has  become  of  the  coincidences  which  were  to  prove  the 
truth  of  Dr.  Balch's  history  ?]  that  as  soon  as  he  died,  the  Patuxent 
congregation  were  without  a  minister  ;  that  as  soon  as  .Air.  Magill  ap- 
pears on  the  minutes,  in  1713,  they  are  found  to  have  a  pastor,  [the 
minutes  say  no  such  thing-,  as  we  shall  see  presently,]  and  when  he 
is  reported  without  a  charge,  Air.  Orme  appears,  and  not  before.  As 
these  accounts  are  entirely  independent  of  each  other,  [he  might 
wiih  great  truth,  have  said  contradictory,  too,]  their  igreement  ren- 
ders their  correctness,  even  on  the  principles  of  the  mathematical  doc- 
trine of  chances,  certain." 

This  Princeton  reviewer  shall  never  teach  the  son  of  him  who 
writes  this,  the  Mathematics,  if  i,"  can  prevent  it.  This  can  hardly 
be  said  to  b(  spinning  out  history  from  his  own  imaginations,  and  set- 
ting down  Itis-  vague  impressions  for  positive  fuels  ;  as  he  charged 
against  Dr.  Hill;  but  it  is  attempting  to  spin  out  historical  verities 
from  absolute  contradictions  and  the  grosses!  absurdities. 

Having  given  such  copious  extracts  from  the  Princeton  review, 
we  shall  now  give  some  explanations,  and  a  little  information,  which 
neither  Prof.  Hodge,  nor  his  learned  friend,  with  all  their  voluminous 
documents,  had  ever  acquired;  which  will  show  what  led  these cham- 
3  at.  controversy  astray,  and  involved  them  in  contradictions  and 
absurdities.  For  ii'  Dr.  Hill  had  been  straitened  for  the  want  of  docu- 
ments, these  writers  appear  to  be  in  a  greater  difficulty  to  know  what 
use  to  make  of  their  superabounding  supply.  The}  evidently  became 
bewildered  in  their  mass  of  clashing  and  discordant  manuscripts. 

1.  They  appear  evidently  not  to  understand  the  progress  and 
of  the  colon)  of  Maryland,  about   the  time  of  the  formation  of  the 
mother  Presbytery  respected  in  this  contn  . .      y.     By  refei  ring  to  Dr. 


20 

Hawks's  History  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Maryland,  pp.  71,  72,. 
he  will  see  an  act  which  was  passed  in  the  year  1692,  "  establish ing 
the  Church  of  England  in  that  province  in  all  her  rights,  liberties  and 
franchises,  wholly  and  inviolable  as  they  then  were,  or  shcvld  tJierc- 
aftcr  be  established  by  law."  Among  other  provisions  of  this  act,  the 
whole  province,  as  far  as  the  population  extended,  was  divided  into 
ten  counties,  which  were  again  subdivided  into  thirty-one  parishes. 
Five  of  these  counties  and  fourteen  of  the  parishes,  lay  on  the  eastern 
shore.  The  remaining  live  counties,  and  seventeen  of  the  parishes, 
lay  on  the  west  of  the  Chesapeake  bay.  Ann  Arundel,  Calvert,  and 
St.  Mary's  counties,  lay  boidering  upon  the  bay  from  the  mouth  of 
Patapsco  to  the  Potomac  river.  Charles  county  bordered  upon  the 
Potomac  river,  including  three  parishes,  the  most  western  of  which 
was  Nanjemoy  and  Piscataway,  which  shows  how  high  the  popula- 
tion extended  up  that  river.  Baltimore  was  a  frontier  county  lately 
organized,  including  all  the  rest  of  the  province,  as  far  as  the  popu- 
lation extended,  and  which  was  not  included  in  the  limits,  set  to  the 
other  counties.  This  county  included  four  parishes,  namely,  St. 
Paul's,  St.  Andrew's,  St.  George's,  and  St.  John's.  Some  of  these 
parishes,  Dr.  Hawks  tells  us,  were  of  very  great  extent,  and  very 
thinly  populated  ;  were  without  any  settled  minister  at  the  time  al- 
luded to,  and  for  a  considerable  time  afterward;  and  bordered  upon 
the  Indian  territory  and  settlements,  and  were  often  exposed  to  blood- 
shed and  depredations.  Baltimore  being  a  barrier,  and  frontier  county, 
had  no  other  limits,  but  the  bounds  of  older  counties,  which  all  lay 
east  of  it,  so  that  it  ran  indefinitely  west.  This  was  a  common  prac- 
tice in  the  early  settlements  of  Virginia  and  other  provinces.  As  the 
population,  filled  up  new  counties  were  laid  off.  The  frontier  county 
was  unrestricted  in  its  limits,  and  other  frontier  counties  were  laid  off 
as  population  extended.  Prince  George's  county,  which  now  includes 
all  the  settlements,  with  the  very  rich  land,  upon  the  head  waters  of 
the  Patuxent,  was  not  then  formed,  so  that  all  these  settlements,  in- 
cluding Upper  Marlborough,  Bladensburg,  and  the  circumjacent  re- 
gions, lay  in  the  bounds  of,  and  belonged  to  Baltimore  county.  There 
was  no  such  town,  or  city,  as  Baltimore,  then  laid  off,  around  which 
the  county  of  Baltimore  now  lies  in  very  contracted  limits.  If  this 
state  of  things  had  been  known  or  recollected,  it  would  not  have 
been  thought,  because  Mr.  Conn  received  a  call  from  Baltimore 
county,  and  settled  there,  that  a  conclusive  argument  had  been  found, 
to  prove  that  Dr.  Hill  had  committed  an  egregious  blunder  in  saying 
that  IVr.  Conn  was  called  and  ordained  as  minister  at  Upper  Marl- 
borough, which  then  lay  in  Baltimore  county.  Dr.  Hill's  opponents 
certainly  set  up  the  shout  of  triumph  before  they  were  quite  ready 
for  it. 

2.  Another  thing  which  led  these  accurate  opponents  of  Dr.  Hill 
astray,  was  the  idea  they  entertained,  thai  there  was  but  one  congre- 
gation or  settlement, upon  the  waters  of  Patuxent,  that  belonged  to, 
or  rev.  ived  attention  from  the  mother  Presbytery;  and  that  Marlbo- 


21 

rough  and  (he  Patuxeni  people,  always  in  the  minutes  of  Presbytery 
Meant  the  same  thi  eas  there  were  scattering  settlemenl 

tending  for  many  miles  up  and  down  thai  river,  to  whom  frequent 
suppli*  ent  bj  the  Presbytery.     In  fact  it  was  complete  mis- 

sionary ground  in  tl  .  which  in  a  short  time  afforded  materials 

for  several  small  congregations.  These  desolate  regions  were  settled 
chiefly  by  dissenters,  which  the  intolerant  Episcopalians,  then  the 
established  religion,  were  willing   i  h   to  wink  at,  as  it  threw  a 

barrier  or  border  settlement  between  them  and  thru-  formidable  ene- 
mies, the  Indians.  The  intolerant  Episcopalians  of  Virginia  did  the 
.  in  permitting  the  French  Huguenots  to  settle  al  .Mam-kin  town 
James  river,  and  the  German  emigrants  to  locate  themselves 
upon  the  waters  of  the  Rappahanoc.  This  decided  the  characti 
the  population  which  settled  upon  the  Patuxent  river,  and  which  pro- 
duced the  connection  between  them  and  the  mother  Presbytery;  And 
if  we  may  be  permitted,  in  our  turn,  to  make  a  little  use  of  the  apo- 
cryphal letters  of  Dr.  Balcb,  he  himself  tells  us  that  Col  Ninian 
Beall  procured  the  extensive  tracts  of  land  which  he  engrossed  about 
Marlborough,  the  city  of  Washington  and  Georgetown,  and  others, 
by  purchases  from  the  Piscataway  tribe  of  Indians,  and  which  tradition 
says,  cost,  him  many  a  hard  fought  battle,  before  lie  obtained  the 
peaceable  possession. 

3.  Tradition  confirmsso  far  another  of  Dr.  Balch's  statements,  that 
the  people  in  these  settlements  availed  themselves  of  a  company  of 
gentlemen  about  London,  whom  they  requested  to  send  minis; • 
preach  the  gospel  to  them.  This  was  no  doubt  the  same  association 
which  sent  out  Makemie,  and  afterwards  Hampton  and  McNish  ;  and 
about  the  year  1713  or  1714,  Conn  and  Orme  were  con 
from  the  same  quarter.  These  London  missionaries,  without  encoun- 
tering the  expense  and  delay  of  forming  at  first  a  connection  with 
the  Presbytery,  came  directly  to  the  field  pointed  out  to  them,  and 
commenced  their  active  labors  among  the  scattering  settlem 
Conn  was  so  well  known,  and  so  popular  among  this  people,  that  in 
17  1  J  he  received  a  pressing  invitation  to  beconu  their  pastor,  but  as 
he  was  as  yet  only  a  licentiate,  and  had  never  been  fully  ordained  as  a 
minister,  it  was  thought  advisable  for  him  to  become  connected  with 
the  Presbytery,  and  receive  the  invitation  and  ordination  at  their 
hands;  he  was  accordingly  ordained  in  October,  1715,  and  became 
their  pastor.  Orme  some  time  alter  followed  his  example.  In  1719 
lie  united  with  the  Presbytery,  and  lived  and  died  as  a  pastor  to  the. 
people  on  Patuxent,  and  near  m  ighbor  to  Mr.  Conn  tdl  death  * 
rated  them.  Col.  Beall  and  James  Gordon,  two  Scotch  merchants, 
who  carried  on  a  profitable  frontier  trade,  took  an  a<  tive  part  in  ob- 
taining the  ministerial  services  of  Mr.  Conn.  Conn  and  Orme  were 
indefatigable  laborers,  and  organized  several  small  congregations  in 
this  missionary  field.  There  is  ground  to  believe,  that  after  some 
years  Conn  retired  from  Marlborough,  and  confined  his  labors  to  Bla- 
densburg  and  another  charge  which  he  served,  higher  up  the  Patux- 


22 

ent  river,  and  more  convenient  to  Bladensburg ;  while  Orme  served 
Marlborough  and  another  small  congregation  somewhere  in  the 
neighborhood.  Dr.  Hill  was,  therefore,  so  far  incorrect,  if  he  sup- 
posed Conn  died  the  pastor  of  Marlborough ;  which,  however,  he  did 
not  positively  assert. 

If  the  Princeton  reviewer  would  now  find  out  who  was  the  minister 
that  had  been  laboring  among  the  people  of  Patuxent,  and  was  still 
looked  upon  as  their  pastor,  he  must  look  to  Conn,  between  whom 
and  that  people  there  was  so  strong  an  attachment,  and  who  was,  ac- 
cording to  their  invitation,  their  pastor  elect,  and  was  soon  to  become 
so  in  reality.  It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  it  was  Magill  who  was 
thus  spoken  of  by  the  Presbytery,  for  if  he  had  ever  labored  among 
that  people,  of  which  we  have  no  evidence  but  Dr.  Balch's  letters,  it 
was  but  for  a  very  short  time,  and  they  soon  parted  without  much 
cordiality  between  them.  This  makes  sense  and  consistency  in  the 
minutes  of  Presbytery,  and  their  letter  of  advice  to  that  people, 
which  was  addressed  "  to  our  dear  Christian  friends  of  Marlborough." 

4.  But  what  shall  be  said  respecting  the  call  McNish  received  from 
this  congregation  soon  after  the  death  of  Taylor,  in  the  year  1711  ? 
This  is  entirely  the  fabrication  of  this  zealous  partisan  reviewer, 
since  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  warrant  no  such  assumption  and  con- 
tain no  such  fancy.  The  true  state  of  the  case  was  this.  About  this 
time  Mr.  McNish  resigned  his  charge  on  the  eastern  shore  of  Mary- 
land, and  was  without  any  pastoral  charge.  The  destitute  settlements 
upon  the  Patuxent  river,  who  were  chieily  dissenters,  hearing  of  this, 
solicited  him  to  come  and  labor  among  them,  and  supply  them  in 
their  destitution.  About  the  same  time  he  received  an  invitation  from 
Jamaica,  on  Long  Island,  to  become  their  pastor.  McNish  lays  this 
business  before  the  Presbyery,  and  asks  their  advice  in  the  case.  The 
Presbytery  chose  not  to  decide,  but  referred  the  matter  to  his  own 
discretion,  only  urging  it  upon  him  to  decide  quickly,  as  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  people  were  great,  and  needed  assistance.  He  makes  his 
decision  to  accept  the  invitation  from  Jamaica,  and  the  Presbytery 
proceed  immediately  to  send  supplies  to  the  destitute  people  on  the 
Patuxent  river  who  had  been  disappointed  in  their  expectation  from 
Mr.  McNish.  Now,  out  of  these  plain  and  simple  facts,  the  ingenu- 
ity of  the  reviewer  has  tortured  the  minutes  to  make  them  speak  of 
a  call  from  an  organized  congregation  on  the  Patuxent,  or  at  Upper 
Marlborough,  which,  by  his  tampering  with  the  records,  he  makes  to 
be  the  same.  All  this  is  done  to  prove  that  Dr.  Hill  had  stated  what 
was  false,  when  he  said  there  had  been  no  organized  church  on  the 
Patuxent  before  the  ordination  and  settlement  of  Mr.  Conn  among 
them.  In  all  the  minutes  relied  upon  there  is  never  mention  made  of 
a  congregation  or  church  on  the  Patuxent,  but  they  are  spoken  of  as 
the  people  of  Patuxent  ;  nor  of  a  call  for  any  minister,  before  Mr. 
James  Gordon,  from  Upper  Marlborough  on  the  Patuxent,  and  in 
Baltimore  county,  was  the  bearer  of  one  for  Conn.  Church  history 
should  be  written  with  more   candor  and  less  party  zeal  than  Prof. 


23 

Hodge,  or  his  own  zealous   friend,  have  exemplified  during  this 
whole  business,  to  speak  of  no  other  and  greater  transactions  of  the 

sort. 

There  is  one  other  subject  connected  with  this  that  deserves  a  little 
notice.  The  congregation  or  church  of  Marlborough  and  Patuxent, 
version,  mean  one  and  the  same  thing.  And  in 
order  to  leave  the  door  open  for  Mr.  Orme,  who  comes  some  years 
after  Mr.  Conn,  they  locate  Conn  in  a  congregation  somewhere  in 
Baltimore  county,  no  doubt  it  was  thoughl  in  the  neighborhood  of 
the  town  of  Baltimore,  about  40  miles  from  Bladensburg, with  which 
it  was  to  be  a  collegiate  church.  Where  this  Baltimore  church  was 
located  no  onecan  tell  further  than  thai  it  ims  not  <>//  the  Patuxent, 
according  to  them.  This,  however,  is  the  first  and  last  of  this  Balti- 
-  i  mgregation  that  was  ever  heard  o£  Into  such  absur- 
dities will  party  zeal  sometimes  carry  good  and  learned  men. 

But  we  have  a  few  more  remarks' to  make  respecting  Dr.  Balch's 
letters,  upon  which  so  much  dependence  is  placed,  and  which  go  so 
directly  to  disprove  Dr.  Hill's  statements.  The  reviewer  has  given 
us  a  little  more  information  respecting  these  letters  than  Prof.  H.  had 
done,  to  prove  that  they  were  not  written  in  his  second  childhood,  as 
Dr.  Hill  had  conjectured.  But  alter  all  we  have  but  such  garbled 
extracts  as  they  were  willing  should  meet  the  public  eye.  This  ad- 
vantage they  had  from  their  unpublished  documents;— and  if  these 
selected  extracts  afford  such  evidence  of  absurdity,  and  want  of  cor- 
rect information,  what  might  not  have  been  expected  had  we  been 
permitted  to  see  the  whole  of  these  precious  manuscripts  in 
extenso  ! 

the  Princeton  review,   pp.    346,  347.     The  writer  here  fur- 
nishes the  following  information  respecting  these  letters: — 

"Dr.  Balch  furnishes  two  accounts  of  this  interesting  corurrcLra- 
tion,  [i.  e.  the  Scotch  congregation  of  Upper  Marlborough,  com- 
posed of  two  hundred  emigrants  from  Scotland,  with  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Taylor,  their  pastor,  whom  they  brought  over  with  them,]  one  is 
dated  April  2,  1793,  and  the  other  December  Is,  1810,  neither,  there- 
fore, written  during  his  second  childhood,  as  Dr.  Hill  conjectures. 
The  former,  which  is  more  genera]  than  the  other,  do<^s  not  present 
a  single  case  of  discrepance  with  the  oliicial  records  of  the  Pres- 
bytery." 

In  a  note  the  reviewer  ^ives  this  further  account  of  this  fust 
letter  :— 

-We  here  insert  all  thai  part  of  hi-  account  of  the  early  history 
of  this  congregation:  'In  the  reign  of  Charles  11,  king  of  Great 
Britain,  a  persecution  was  set  on  fool  by  the  Episcopalians,  against 

the  Presbyterians.     This  storm  fell  with  great  weight  upon (we 

cannot,"  says  he,  "make  out  this  word,)  many  oi  them  were  burnt, 
drowned,  hung,  or  otherwise  tortured  to  death  ;  others  were  com- 


u 

pelled  to  leave  their  pleasant  houses,  their  wives  and  children, 
and  to  take  refuge  in  foreign  climes.  Of  this  latter  class  was 
Col.  Ninian  Beall,  a  native  of  North  Britain,  who,  for  the  sake 
of  conscience,  fled  from  his  own  land  and  nation,  and  fought 
for  that  liberty  in  Maryland,  which  was  denied  him  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Atlantic.  Some  years  after  his  arrival  in  Maryland, 
he  made  purchase  of  several  tracts  of  land,  from  the  tribe  of  the 
Piscataway  Indians.  On  one  of  these  tracts  he  laid  out  the  town 
of  Upper  Marlborough,  and  there  fixed  his  own  residence.  Remem- 
bering that  he  had  a  large  number  of  relations  at  home,  subject  to 
the  same  sufferings  from  which  he  had  escaped;  and  now  enjoying 
the  sweets  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  he  wrote  to  his  friends  to 
come  over  to  Maryland,  and  participate  in  his  happiness,  urging  it 
upon  them,  at  the  same  time,  to  bring  with  them  a  faithful  minister 
of  the  gospel.  They  arrived  some  months  afterwards,  accompanied  by 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Taylor,  their  pastor.  Col.  Beall  marked  off  a  lot,  in 
Upper  Marlborough,  for  a  meeting  house  and  burying  ground,  con- 
taining one  and  a  half  acres  of  land.  A  house  for  public  worship 
was  built,  and  the  small  but  growing  congregation  was  happy  and 
thankful  under  the  labors  of  their  minister ;  when,  lo  !  Mr.  Taylor, 
to  the  great  grief  and  consternation  of  his  Hock,  was  suddenly  called 
into  the  invisible  world.  They  lamented  for  a  time  this  dark  pro- 
cess of  divine  Providence.  At  last,  however,  they  took  courage  and 
made  application  to  some  of  the  Presbyteries  or  Synods  of  Scotland 
for  another  minister.  Mr.  Magill  was  sent  over,  and  being  of  a  mo- 
rose and  sulky  temper,  he  and  the  congregation  soon  differed  and 
parted.  The  Rev.  John  Orme,  a  native  of  Derbyshire,  was  fixed  on 
for  their  next  pastor.  He  arrived  at  Upper  Marlborough  in  1719, 
and  continued  laboring  among  them  with  success,  until  the  year 
1758,  when  he  was  removed  from  his  charge  by  death.' 

"  In  his  second  communication,  [says  the  reviewer,]  Dr.  Balch 
goes  more  into  detail.  After  narrating  the  particular  manner  of  Col. 
Beall's  escape  from  Scotland,  he  fixes  his  arrival  in  this  country  at 
about  1690,  and  that  of  his  friends,  to  the  number  of  at  least  two 
hundred,  about  1700." 

The  reviewer  differs  here  from  the  account  given  by  Prof.  Hodge 
about  ten  years,  and  yet  both  profess  to  derive  their  statements  from 
Dr.  B.'s  letters.  However,  the  reviewer  in  a  note  undertakes  to 
prove  how  this  discrepance  occurred.     Says  he : — 

"Prof.  Hodge  was  inaccurate  in  stating  1G90,  instead  of  1700,  as 
the  date  of  Mr.  Taylor's  arrival  in  this  country.  This  mistake  arose 
from  his  confusing  the  two  accounts  given  by  Dr.  Balch.  In  the 
one,  he  states  that  Col.  Beall  arrived  in  1690,  and  in  the  other,  that 
his  friends  came  some  time  after,  without  mentioning  the  year." 

This  is  a  disingenuous  misquotation.  Dr.  Balch's  words  are,  as 
the  reader  may  see  by  looking  a  little  back, — "  They  arrived  some 
months  afterward,  accompanied  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Taylor,  their  pastor." 


25 

In  this  lame  manner  does  the  reviewer  attempt  to  relieve  our  prof 
from  a  difficulty  which  placed  him  in  an  unenviable  altitude    The 
reviewer  apologizes  further.    "Hence,"  says  he,  "  Mr.  Hodge  stated 
the  time  as  about   1690."     How  did  the  reviewer  know  what  led 

Prof.  II.  into  this  mistake  I  Did  the  professor  tell  him  how  he  came 
to  make  thai  blunder,  or  did  the  professor  write  the  review  himseli  ! 
If  it  was  the  reviewer's  own  doing,  without  Professor  Hodge's  privity, 
he  deserves  a  reproof  for  making  so  lame  an  apology.     But  further, 

says  he : — 


c 

Uv 

bert  Magill,  instead  of  Daniel  Magill.     He  also  places  the  death  of 

Mr.  Taylor  in  1703,  whereas  he  was  living  in  September,  1709." 

These  are  slight  mistakes,  which,  instead  of  affecting  the  correc- 
rectness  of  Dr.  Balch's  statements,  only  go  to  confirm  them  ;  as  these 
are  the  words  of  the  writer  of  this  critique,  will  not  the  reader  call  it 
an  ill-natured  caricature  of  the  reviewer  ?  But  we  will  let  him  speak 
for  himself: — 

"Such  inaccuracies  are  precisely  what  might  have  been  expected 
from  an  attempt  to  be  so  particular  in  giving  from  tradition  such 
minute  circumstances. 

"Instead,  however,  of  weakening  the  credibility  of  his  account,  they 
rather  confirm  it,  by  showing  that  it  is  entirely  independent  of  official 
records,  [aye,  and  contradictory  of  them,  too,]  by  which,  as  to  all 
essential  points,  it  is  so  wonderfully  confirmed;  namely,  That  Taylor 
was  pastor  of  Marlborough  before  1705,  [but  had  been  dead  two 
years,]  that  he  died  early,  [i.  e.  before  the  presbytery  was  formed,] 
that  he  was  succeeded  hy  .Man-ill,  and  he  by  Orme,  are  sustained  by 
the  coincident  state  of  the  minutes,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave  no 
doubt  of  their  correctness." 

But  the  minutes  say  not  a  word  alxnit  Taylor's  being  Pastor  of 
Marlborough,  nor  Magill's  succeeding  him,  nor  Urine's  succeeding 
Magill,  the  only  points  essential  in  the  present  controversy,  and 
which,  instead  of  being  proved,  are  now  sophistical  I  \  assumed  and 
confidently  asserted. 

The  fact  is,  that  these  essential  points,  to  say  nothing  of  contradic- 
tions, are  to  be  gathered  exclusively  and  alone,  from  these  apocry- 
phal letters  of  Dr.  Balchj  and  are  sustained  by  nothing,  but  the  ef- 
frontery of  those  who  say  to  the  contrary.  It  is  strange  that  any 
one  who  has  any  regard  tor  reputation,  or  respect  lor  his  reader's 
judgment,  would  hazard  such  assertions.  This  again,  instead  of spin- 
ing  out  history  from  his  own  imagination, and  setting  down  his  c- 

4 


26 

conjectures  as  positive  facts,  is  attempting  to  establish  his  positions  by 
direct  contradictions,  and  the  grossest  absurdities. 

To  give  but  one  more  instance  of  the  loose,  incoherent  and  contra- 
dictory manner  in  which  Dr.  Balch  wrote  respecting  historical  facts, 
let  the  following  be  noticed.  He  states  that  Col.  Ninian  Beall  fled 
from  Scotland  during  the  persecution  of  the  Presbyterians  under  the 
reign  of  Charles  II.  and  arrived  and  settled  in  Maryland,  in  1690. 
Now  let  it  be  remembered,  that  Charles  II  died  in  the  year  1685,  i.  e. 
five  years  before  Col.  Beall  left  Scotland.  Charles  II  was  succeeded 
the  same  year  he  died,  by  James  II,  under  whose  reign  persecution 
had  in  a  great  measure  died  away  in  Scotland.  In  1688,  two  years 
before  his  leaving  Scotland,  James  abdicated  the  throne  and  fled  from 
his  country,  and  the  glorious  revolution  of  1688  was  effected  by 
William,  Prince  of  Orange,  wThen  Episcopacy  was  abolished,  and 
Presbyterianism  re-established  in  Scotland,  and  the  act  of  Toleration 
passed,  securing  liberty  of  conscience  to  all  dissenters  within  the 
British  empire. 

Again,  Dr.  Balch  states,  that  within  a  short  time  after  Col.  Beall 
arrived  in  Maryland,  where  he  enjoyed  all  the  sweets  of  religious 
freedom  and  civil  liberty,  he  wrote  over  and  prevailed  upon  his  per- 
secuted relations  in  Scotland,  to  come  over  and  enjoy  with  him  the 
sweets  and  privileges  of  his  new  home,  who  within  a  few  months  af- 
ter arrived  to  the  amount  of  200,  &c.  But  in  the  year  1692,  Mary- 
land had  disgraced  herself  so  far,  as  to  abolish  her  former  noble  and 
liberal  charter,  and  to  establish  the  Episcopal  church  of  England,  in  all 
its  privileges,  immunities,  rights,  franchises,  &c.  &c.  and  was  pretty 
rigorously  executing  the  persecuting  enactments  of  that  church,  as  we 
learn  from  the  treatment  wThich  Makemie,  Hampton,  and  McNish  re- 
ceived, on  the  eastern  shore  of  Maryland.  Here  we  see  Dr.  Balch 
makes  Col.  Beall,  Mr.  Taylor,  and  200  Scotchmen,  fly  from  persecu- 
tion in  Scotland,  many  years  after  persecution  had  there  ceased,  and 
Presbyterianism  was  there  established  and  riding  in  all  its  glory  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  regal  civil  power  ;  and  Maryland  was  imita- 
ting her  neighbor,  Virginia,  in  persecuting  and  harrassing  dissenters 
whenever  they  fairly  stood  in  her  way. 

And  yet  Professor  H.  and  his  keen  sighted  advocate,  let  all  these 
gross  blunders  and  anachronisms  pass  as  sober  realities,  and  unques- 
tionable historical  verities.  Had  they  been  as  willing  to  have  detect- 
ed inaccuracies,  and  contradictions,  and  absurdities  in  Dr.  Balch,  as 
they  were  in  Dr.  Hill,  matters  would  have  appeared  to  them  very  dif- 
ferently from  what  they  did.  But  there  is  a  great  difference  between 
your  bull  and  my  ox,  and  this  alters  the  cas<j  ! 

Query.  Why  did  not  the  Scotch  historians,  Cruikshank  and  Wod- 
row,  with  all  their  circumstantmlity  and  partii  ularity  of  detail,  make 
mention' of  the  sufferings  of  Col.  Ninian  Beale,  the  Rev.  James  Tay- 
lor, and  their  expatriation,  with  at  least  200  Scotch  refugees  from 
persecution?     Echo  answers,  \Yn\  1 


27 

There  are  some  other  things  of  minor  importance  contained  in  this 
Princeton  review,  which  might  have  been  noticed  and  refuted,  hut 
time  and  circumstances  will  not  admit  of  itj  nor  is  it  necessary,  as 
their  frivolity  will  render  them  quite  harmless. 

One  more  extract,  and  only  one,  shall  close  our  present  notice  of 
this  writer.      Page  3  IS. 

"After  the  exhibition  which  has  just  been  made,"  sny*  he,  "we 
are  satisfied,  the  public  will  feci,  that  they  have  no  right  to  assume 
that  the  correctness  of  Dr.  HilPs  representations  is  admitted)  should 
they  be  allowed  to  pass  uncontradicted." 

Persons  who  conceive  they  are  seated  in  high  places,  are  apt  to 
treat  a  common  enemy  contemptuously,  and  it  has  often  proved  very 
dangerous  policy.  But  it  strikes  us,  that  this  is  certainly  in  bad  taste; 
so  decidedly  ami  cxultingly  claiming  a  victory,  and  declaring  an  ene- 
my demolished,  to  make  a  proclamation  that  they  mean  hereafter  nev- 
er to  notice  what  he  might  say  or  do.  This  premature  triumph  may 
have  different  constructions.  It  may  be  thought  to  proceed  from 
sheer  vanity,  or  an  overweening  opinion  of  our  own  smartness;  for- 
getting at  the  same  time  the  taunting  reply,  "  your  trumpeter  is  dead." 
Or  it  might  have  proceeded  from  timidity  or  cowardice,  which  dreaded 
to  meet  an  adversary  the  second  time.  At  any  rate,  this  wisdom  de- 
scenddh  not  from  above. 

But  if  these,  and  such  like  objections  and  aspersions,  are  all  that 
Dr.  Hill  may  expect  from  the  head  quarters  of  hostility,  he  may  well 
congratulate  himself;  for  no  doubt  he  must,  and  did  expect,  that  more 
serious  errors,  and  weighty  objections  might  have  been  found  in  his 
hasty  production  ;  for  he  certainly  has  passed  through  such  hands,  so 
able  and  so  willing  [to  make  a  finish  of  him  —  if  they  could —  with 
fewer  wounds  and  broken  bones,  than  might  have  been  expected. 
But  truth,  and  not  victory,  or  reputation,  or  the  spoils  of  office,  ap- 
pears to  have  been  his  object 

SIMPLEX. 


' 


